[quote=“Cola”]Whatever happens, Bolton has made white moustaches a new cultural icon in the post-Mark Twain era. What a stache!
I think he will get voted in. Let the fireworks begin. He is exactly what the UN needs. The guy’s got guts. So what if he’s a little crazy in the EQ zone? They are all…[/quote]cola -
2 great statements.
I agree about the 'stache. It does remind me of Ol Sammuel.
And yes…he needs to shake the house up!
Of course, I was rooting for Dr. Alan Keyes for Sec. State instead of Gen. Powell.
[quote]Throughout my time in the Senate, I have been hesitant to push my views on my colleagues. However, I feel compelled to share my deep concerns with the nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations. I strongly feel that the importance of this nomination to our foreign policy requires us to set aside our partisan agenda and let our consciences and our shared commitment to our nation
Sign me up for sending a negative message to the rest of the world, particularly the UN. What are we supposed to be doing instead? Lauding the UN for its corrupt and venal administration? Celebrating the fact that the organization is incapable or unwilling to stop conflicts like the one occuring in Sudan as it stood on the sidelines with Rwanda and Burundi? Touting the fact that countries like Zimbabwe are voted onto the human rights commission along with Sudan? What?
I say, let’s send that message. The UN is getting an F and it needs to shape up or ship out.
Shape up or ship out. Is that a potential MFGRism? Anyone?
Out of all the discussion about why or why not to support Bolton, I am so pleased and surprised to see that you have singled out the one response discussing Israel. Amazing.
It’s a legitimate question. Taking on the burdens of another nation is a costly responsibility with significant consequences and adopting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as a way of dodging discussion of the topic is disingenuous.
What should settle the issue is the truth of the matter, not some knee-jerk political correctness.
I thought it was a bit strange as well that Voinovich thinks that one of the important reasons for reforming the UN is to ensure that Israel’s needs are protected. He doesn’t mention ensuring the anti-Taiwan bias is removed. Doesn’t mention ensuring that Darfur gets straightened out. I would think that a key aspect of any reform plan would be to ensure that a chilled metal meat tenderizer is inserted sideways in Kofi Annan’s son’s ass.
[quote]John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.
A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani “had to go,” particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.[/quote]
Somebody dared to try to send inspectors into Iraq? Well, of course Bolton would be against that. :loco:
This just in – when Bolton departs from a position, his former colleagues are finally able to get some real work done. I guess the price of being so abrasive and pseudo-machiavellian should have been more obvious to us. Just check out this article:
[quote]For years, a key U.S. program intended to keep Russian nuclear fuel out of terrorist hands has been frozen by an arcane legal dispute. As undersecretary of state, John R. Bolton was charged with fixing the problem, but critics complained he was the roadblock.
Now with Bolton no longer in the job, U.S. negotiators report a breakthrough with the Russians and predict a resolution will be sealed by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin at an international summit in Scotland next month, clearing the way to eliminate enough plutonium to fuel 8,000 nuclear bombs.
Without the hard-charging Bolton around, the Bush administration not only has moved to reconcile with Russia over nuclear threat reduction but also has dropped its campaign to oust the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and made common cause with European allies in offering incentives to Iran to persuade it to drop any ambitions for nuclear weapons.
“Throughout his career in the first Bush administration, he was always playing the stopper role for a lot of different issues and even when there was obvious interest by the president in moving things forward, Bolton often found ways of stopping things by tying the interagency process in knots,” said Rose Gottemoeller, a Clinton administration official who worked on nonproliferation issues. “That’s the situation we’re seeing dissipate now.”
“He was such a dominant player, he really did take people out of action,” said George Perkovich, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Nobody was going to go toe-to-toe with him because they knew the president loved him.”[/quote]
once again, we are witnessing the mind-boggling “logic” that has drivin the Bush machine.
this is just another step in the process of pissing off EVERY other country in the world.
we are witnessing america’s own version of julius caesar.
a few quotes from Julius Caesar that seem cogent:
“Men are quick to believe that which they wish to be true.”
“It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.”
“What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others to think also.”
does anyone else think that Dubya might keep a book or two related to caesar on his nightstand? or perhaps the material might be above his reading level???..lol
I think the thinking of Caligula has been a current favorite of his administration – that bit about it being better to fear than to love us.
Interestingly, Bush is not the only man to set his troops loose upon an utterly useless enemy in a sandy wasteland. Caligula had his troops attack a deserted stretch of beach once, ordering them to haul back to Rome lots of seashells which he claimed were treasures he had taken in a fight with Neptune.
Seriously, am I the only one who finds this all a little depressing?
In the interest of fairness, I should note that I would also find it depressing if John Bolton’s proponents were to paint him as a heroic Hercules, or as any other absurd caricature. Then again, that doesn’t generally happen does it?
As with many areas of American politics discussion, we often see one side saying that their opponents are: perhaps well-intentioned, but wrong for X, Y, or Z reasons. The other side of the coin, sadly, would often rather portray any given honest disagreement over policy as a battle between good and evil – i.e. not between one side that is trying to do what is right but “gets it wrong”, but between one side that is fundamentally virtuous, and one side that is fundamentally malevolent.
It’s just such an odd way to look at human beings. And politics.
(Note: I don’t think that this dichotomy universally obtains among all people or all posters, it’s just my general impression, on balance. )
If you take Bolton, no matter whether he seems like a “nice guy to have in a bar brawl” or a “great guy to get a beer with” or whatever, if you look at his actual working style it simply does not seem to be effective. I am less worried about his ability to work effectively with counterparts at the UN (he won’t) than I am concerned that he will simply not work effectively with the people that are supposed to be on his side. I called him “pseudo-machiavellian” because Machiavelli wouldn’t have tolerated his sort of ineffective skullduggery against his own people – the idea that his absence frees his former colleagues to excell mean it is high time that Bolton made the move to a Florida retirement home full of similar cranks or, similarly, an of-counsel position at a white-shoe law firm.
Now there’s an argument I can respect. That’s not to say that I agree with it – – but at least it is something that I can understand. You’re saying “Look, I just don’t think that he will do a good job because A, B, C.” Nothing about him being an evil man, nothing about him rejoicing in the torture and suffering of innocents, or having fangs, or collecting seashells, or whatever else.
You don’t think he’s the right man for the job. Fair enough.
[quote=“Hobbes”]i.e. not between one side that is trying to do what is right but “gets it wrong”, but between one side that is fundamentally virtuous, and one side that is fundamentally malevolent.
It’s just such an odd way to look at human beings. And politics.
[/quote]
I thought that you wanted government as small as possible as you suspected anyone involved would either be fundamentaly malevolent going in or would drift that way once in power.
Actually, I think that a distinction should be made between politicians and the partisan supporters of a particular side. Even with respect to the politicians themselves, though, I think that most of them are just selfish and/or power hungry, rather than truly malevolent/evil. Obviously none of these character traits are positive, but I do believe that there is a difference.
As for the supporters, I think the vast majority (on both sides) are well-meaning, and that most disagreements have to do with (a) how to prioritize goals and values (many of which both parties hold in as desirable), and (b) the state of the facts on the ground – a problem which is not helped by the fact that many people now read only “their own side’s” newspapers/websites etc – which just exacerbates the dissonance. :s
)
Now there’s an argument I can respect. That’s not to say that I 
– but at least it is something that I can understand. You’re saying “Look, I just don’t think that he will do a good job because A, B, C.” Nothing about him being an evil man, nothing about him rejoicing in the torture and suffering of innocents, or having fangs, or collecting seashells, or whatever else.
Touche, butcher boy. Touche. :bravo: